M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Act, dated 08.11.2011 for the A.Y.2012-13 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] the Act, dated 30.03.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves to quashed

M/S. UNIFUES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B 35/36, Midc Kalmehwar, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur – 441501. Nagpur. Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.11.2021 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : M/S.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.11.2021 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2016. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : M/s.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A] “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 60,00,000 representing unaccounted income which is illegal, and which

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

depreciation, it clearly indicates the addition is made with the prejudice and unlawful way and therefore needs to be deleted. 18. Further not withstanding anything mentioned in above para, even otherwise, if the expenses on purchase of machines are disallowed, it would ultimately result in increase in gross total income, which is completely deductible under section 80P. Thus, the deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT (NAFC)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– “1] Order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

PREMJEET SINGH,DABHA NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

depreciation and related costs for commuting to the office which was not paid separately by the company. The company has paid us for visiting the clients but not for commuting to office. We agree with the proposed adjustment and accept the same for the best interest of the department. However, we hereby request to waive any penalty u/s 270A since

TAJSHREE MOTORS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roytajshree Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dict/Acit, Circle– 4, 17, Tajshree Estate, Vs Nagpur Nandanwan, Nagpur. Pan : Aacct 9187 G Assessee Respondent

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company did not choose to file the return of income for AY 2018-19. Based

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

depreciation 60% on the computer items has been disallowed by the AO by way of order passed under sec. 154 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that originally, the assessment was completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act, which was revised in pursuance to the order passed under sec. 250 of the Act. Section 154 provides

GIRAD GRAMIN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 124 days in fling the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that it is located in a small place and its employees are not very well versed with